Discuss: The Open-Source Milestone Application Framewor

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

"Akil Franklin" <afranklin at techMilestone.com> wrote:

> Article 7 is basically meant to ensure that the authors of the framework
> are notified when it is used (i.e. placed into a production system
> either modified or not). Again, the goal is the sharing of information.
> Perhaps the following would be better:
> 
> 7. Milestone must be notified when this product is placed into a
> production system (either modified or not). Such notification can be
> made by visiting www.techMilestone.com and filling out the appropriate
> online form. If you have any questions about this process, please send
> an email to MAFAdmin at techMilestone.com.
> 
> Better?

I don't think it is better.  

Notifying a specific entity requires that the entity exists.  This
may not be the case in 10 years, or next week (which is not an
insult, just a statement of the risk that an adopter will recognize.)

Secondly, requiring a specific method of notification requires that
the method is available.  This could allow the licensor to control
who can use the method, which is a clear OSD violation.

For community philosophy on this point, you can read what Bruce
Perens et al. wrote about the APSL 1.0 clause 2.2(c) at.

   http://perens.com/Articles/APSL.html

As you can see in the APSL version 1.2, clause 2.2(c) does not
have the same problem.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3